https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/1722

 **REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE EMPLOYMENT *&* LABOUR RELATIONS** **COURT OF KENYA AT KISUMU** **APPEAL NO. E010 OF 2026** BOARD OF MANAGEMENT OBEDE SECONDARY SCHOOL……………………………...**APPELLANT** **VERSUS** JOSEPH ODUOR ONYANGO...........................................**RESPONDENT** *(Being an Appeal against the judgment and decree of Hon. Dennis. Matutu SRM in Kisumu MC. ELRC No. E071 of 2024 delivered on the 23rd December 2025)* **RULING** 1. The Appellant has moved this Court by way of an application dated 13th May 2026 seeking an order of stay of execution of the judgment of the trial court pending the hearing and determination of the appeal herein. The Appellant also seeks costs of the application. 2. The application is premised on the three grounds set out on its face and is supported by the affidavit of Millicent Anyango, the Appellant’s Secretary. The Appellant contends that the forty-five (45) day stay of execution granted by the Trial Court has since lapsed, thereby exposing it to imminent execution by the Respondent. It is further averred that the appeal is arguable, with high chances of success and that, unless the orders sought are granted, the appeal will be rendered nugatory. The Appellant also maintains that, being a public institution, it ought not to be required to furnish security for the due performance of the decree. In addition, it contends that the application was filed approximately one month after the delivery of judgment and therefore without undue delay. 3. The application is opposed through the Respondent’s replying affidavit sworn on 25th May 2026. The Respondent depones that the application is incompetent and offends Rule 47 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules 2024 on the ground that the supporting affidavit was not commissioned. He further contends that the application is premature since no execution proceedings have been initiated and neither a decree nor a Certificate of Order against the Government has been exhibited by the Appellant. On that basis, he argues that the Appellant has failed to demonstrate any substantial loss that would warrant the grant of a stay of execution. The Respondent further avers that he stands to suffer considerable prejudice if the orders sought are granted, having been out of employment for more than two years. He therefore urges the Court to dismiss the application with costs. 4. On 26th May 2026 the Appellant expressed intention to file a supplementary affidavit. However, no such affidavit has been filed to date. Disposition 1. The singular issue is whether the Appellant is entitled to the orders sought. In such a case, the Court is mandated to consider whether the application has been made without undue delay and whether there is an offer of security. The Court is also required to weigh and consider the prejudice that the Respondent will suffer should the order of stay issue. The Appellant before the Court has moved with dispatch. However, no security is offered for the due performance of the decree of the Court. The Appellant has also not demonstrated that an execution is imminent. There is no evidence that the Respondent is about to execute the decree of the Court. No certificate of Order Against Government has been shown, no process for issue of *mandamus* or even a threat to execute is displayed. As such this application is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed with costs to the Respondent. There will be directions on 14th July 2026 in respect of the Appeal. It is so ordered. **Dated and delivered at Kisumu this 23rd day of June 2026** **Nzioki wa Makau, MCIArb.** **JUDGE**